Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Apparently, McCain hasn't quite gotten all the facts right. There are plenty of reasons to be pi$$ed off at the F-35 program, but complaints based on stats cherry-picked for their shock value need to be reexamined.

http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/06/mccai ... -the-past/

F-16.net Sponsor

1st503rdsgt wrote:

• All known "hot spots" will be fixed by LRIP 8.

So how much will it cost to fix LRIP 1-7 aircraft once we reach that point? What performance limitations will these early aircraft have throughout their service life? Will we be able to extend these early aircraft beyond 8000 hrs when it comes time to talk about a SLEP program or will they simply be deemed too expensive to fix? I think the concurrence has outlived its usefulness. I would rather see production stopped until all the structural testing and fixes are in place then start with a higher rate production rate of a solid airframe in 2014 or 2015. These LRIP aircraft won't be of any use to national defense before then anyway.

It cost too much to stop a production line, just look at the F-22 line.

btw, how much will it cost to keep all the legacy fighters flying that the F-35 will replace?

handyman wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

• All known "hot spots" will be fixed by LRIP 8.

So how much will it cost to fix LRIP 1-7 aircraft once we reach that point? What performance limitations will these early aircraft have throughout their service life? Will we be able to extend these early aircraft beyond 8000 hrs when it comes time to talk about a SLEP program or will they simply be deemed too expensive to fix? I think the concurrence has outlived its usefulness. I would rather see production stopped until all the structural testing and fixes are in place then start with a higher rate production rate of a solid airframe in 2014 or 2015. These LRIP aircraft won't be of any use to national defense before then anyway.

Have a large amount of aircraft that are not fully operational is not abnormal, and can they can still make a useful contribution. There are approximately 34 Raptors that serve as part of the test fleet and training purposes, which will not be upgraded due to various issues/prohibitive cost. Certainly some of the later LRIP aircraft will probably only require a few upgrades, if any to get them to full operational status. However older ones that are not upgraded could be used for a variety of non-combat roles.

handyman wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

• All known "hot spots" will be fixed by LRIP 8.

So how much will it cost to fix LRIP 1-7 aircraft once we reach that point? What performance limitations will these early aircraft have throughout their service life? Will we be able to extend these early aircraft beyond 8000 hrs when it comes time to talk about a SLEP program or will they simply be deemed too expensive to fix? I think the concurrence has outlived its usefulness. I would rather see production stopped until all the structural testing and fixes are in place then start with a higher rate production rate of a solid airframe in 2014 or 2015. These LRIP aircraft won't be of any use to national defense before then anyway.

Rough estimates are 3-5m per airframe. Who knows what the actual amount will be until they actually redesign the areas in question, retool, and apply the fixes.

The teardown and upgrade of earlier LRIP airframes could be part of the training process at Eglin, win-win. Smile

HB's right, the initial production aircraft are going to be used as training aircraft, test aircraft to expand the F-35 weapons carrying capabilities, for the Blue Angles and Thunder Birds flight demonstration teams. So should the stealthiest of these aircraft have to be compromised for structural repairs later on it is not going to be a big deal. It is more advantageous that Lockheed Martin have production aircraft moving through the factory so they can work out bugs in the production line and bring the cost of the aircraft down to where they are affordable.

Last edited by handyman on Dec 07, 2011 - 04:55 AM; edited 1 time in total

SpudmanWP wrote:

It cost too much to stop a production line, just look at the F-22 line.

btw, how much will it cost to keep all the legacy fighters flying that the F-35 will replace?

A lot but it doesn't make any difference if we manufacture flawed LRIP aircraft now or fully developed high rate production airframes later. The LRIP planes won't be fully operational in the next few years no matter what. We will still be relying on legacy aircraft 5 years from now either way.

alloycowboy wrote:

HB's right, the initial production aircraft are going to be used as training aircraft, test aircraft to expand the F-35 weapons carrying capabilities, for the Blue Angles and Thunder Birds flight demonstration teams. So should the stealthiest of these aircraft have to be compromised for structural repairs later on it is not going to be a big deal. It is more advantageous that Lockheed Martin have production aircraft moving through the factory so they can work out bugs in the production line and bring the cost of the aircraft down to where they are affordable.

You have a good point. The one caveat I have is that LRIP and the subsequent repairs they will require will be more expensive than starting with a high rate of production later.

Yes they will, they will just not have a 8k airframe until they are fixed. That fix will take place during other PRE-PLANNED downtime so as not to interrupt the fighter's normal operational responsibilities.

The F-16 was structurally "flawed" until Post Block 40. Especially when you look at Blocks 5, 10, and 15. And there were hundreds of those three blocks, then you add in the Block 25/30/32 and you are now talking more than 1,000 structurally "flawed" F-16's. And Yet I think you would have to be a pretty big knuckle head to say that the F-16 is not a very effective aircraft. Block 15's still fly with a lot of EPAF, and USAF still has Block 25/30/32 in service. And I don't think a single one has not had some kind of structural mod to it. (look for the "lawn mower blade" on the upper center fuselage, just aft of the refueling receptacle, it is on almost every Pre-Block flying today, and no they haven't reached the 8,000 hour point yet).

All that said, I'm not to worried about the LRIP F-35's. They will make repairs, and now that the contract includes shared concurrency upgrades, I think it won't be a huge additional expense anymore. The "flawed" F-35's can be used for training, as Eglin and other training bases will need the first planes anyway, training flight don't put nearly as much strain on an airframe (early training, not Top Gun type stuff).

Also there are a lot of good arguements for concurrency, and to a degree it has been happening for the last several decades, so it is not something new. Some benefits include, the chance for LM to maintain a skilled work force (if they just built the SDD and then waited to complete testing, the factory would have shut down earlier this year and not re-opened until 2014-2015, what happens to your skilled work force in that time?), LM has the opportunity to improve the efficiency (touch time has dropped significantly from LRIP 1 to LRIP 4, I think ~40%!), the price has dropped earlier, than other wise, keep the supply chain alive and find weak links in the supply chain, as well as help prepare suppliers for the 200+ per year output that is coming, ect.

Sufa Viper

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Apparently, McCain hasn't quite gotten all the facts right. There are plenty of reasons to be pi$$ed off at the F-35 program, but complaints based on stats cherry-picked for their shock value need to be reexamined.

http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/06/mccai ... -the-past/

Note that is was written by Robbin Laird, one of the co-founders of SLDinfo, a site sponsored in part by Lockheed Martin. Just for full disclosure.

SLDinfo sponsored by LM?? Source?

SpudmanWP wrote:

SLDinfo sponsored by LM?? Source?

Their own advertising banner.

Advertisement <> sponsorship. Otherwise every newspaper and tv news show could be called bias.

btw, I never see banners, thank you Firefox + AdBlock Plus Smile

btw, Dassault and Thales are both advertisers too. That does not keep SLD from bashing them Smile

SLDinfo write some good articles about the usefulness of the F-35B to the USMC from their flat decks and how USMC CONOPS have/will change with the F-35B. To my comprehension sometimes these reports are not well-written - maybe that is just me - and a minor point in the overall scheme of things. I could see how the new concepts/ideas about the USMC and F-35B could annoy some 'oldie' readers [such as me and McCain "Aahh McCain - you've done it again"]. Very Happy

Here is another: Winning the Air/Sea Battle Dec/06/2011 by Ed Timperlake

http://www.sldinfo.com/winning-the-airsea-battle/

"...US and allied forces will have the perfect aircraft in the F-35 to play both offensive and defense when hypersonic Cruise Missiles become a combat reality. The C4ISR-D “Z-axis” in the cockpit can lead the way in developing a Pacific “honeycomb” ISR Grid to handle the hyper-sonic Cruise Missile threat and also go on the offensive since Chinese President Hu Jintao has just put the PLAN on combat alert...."

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

A Rebuttal to McCain's "Tragedy"